CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2015-2389 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2017

Thomas Dow, D.C., P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County concerning a provider's action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., moved for summary judgment, asserting that the amount sought by the plaintiff exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The District Court initially denied this motion, citing the defendant's failure to establish timely denial of claims. However, the Appellate Term reversed this decision, finding that the defendant had indeed timely mailed its denial forms and made a prima facie showing that the charges were in excess of the permitted fee schedule. The plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence to counter the defendant's fee schedule defense. Consequently, the Appellate Term granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleTimely DenialAppellate TermSuffolk CountyInsurance LawAssigned BenefitsMedical ProviderPrima Facie Showing
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Princess C.

The case involves an appeal by a mother (respondent) from an Albany County Family Court order, which adjudicated her children to be permanently neglected and terminated her parental rights. The children, Princess C., Jyrese C., Lareisha D., Usavius D., and Autumn D., had been placed in the petitioner agency's custody due to the mother's failure to comply with conditions related to domestic violence, substance abuse, and unstable housing. The appellate court found that the petitioner agency exercised diligent efforts and that the mother failed to plan for the children's future. However, the court determined that the record was insufficient to conclude whether the termination of parental rights was in the best interest of each child. Consequently, the appellate court withheld its decision and remitted the matter back to the Family Court for a further dispositional hearing to be held within 90 days.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFamily Law AppealDiligent EffortsBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolenceSubstance AbuseMental HealthUnstable Housing
References
18
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. No. 29-30
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas Johnson; In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph D. Liuni

This opinion addresses two appeals concerning Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15, specifically whether a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a subsequent injury to a subpart of an enumerated body "member" must be reduced by a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same member. The Court of Appeals holds that WCL § 15 (7) allows for multiple SLU awards for successive injuries to the same statutory body member, provided the claimant demonstrates that the second injury, considered by itself, caused an increased loss of use. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Johnson v City of New York, finding that claimant Thomas Johnson failed to provide sufficient evidence that his knee injuries caused a further loss of use of his legs beyond that addressed in a prior SLU award for hip injuries. Conversely, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Liuni v Gander Mountain, remitting the case for further proceedings because claimant Joseph D. Liuni did provide evidence that his later shoulder injury caused a distinct increase in the loss of use of his arm separate from a prior elbow injury. The decision clarifies the application of WCL § 15 (7) regarding successive SLU awards and the burden of proof on claimants.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Successive InjuriesBody Member ImpairmentOffset RulePrior Disability CompensationEarning CapacityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2016

Padilla v. Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C.

Raul Padilla, an ophthalmic technician, filed a collective action against his employer, Sheldon Rabin, M.D., P.C., and its owner, Dr. Sheldon Rabin, seeking retroactive overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The central issue was whether Padilla was an 'exempt' salaried professional employee. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court found that Padilla did not meet the 'salary basis' test required for the FLSA's learned professional exemption, thus granting his motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claim regarding this exemption. However, issues regarding the 'primary duty' test for the NYLL exemption, statute of limitations (willfulness), and liquidated damages were deemed triable issues for a jury.

FLSANYLLOvertime PayExempt EmployeeLearned Professional ExemptionSalary Basis TestPrimary Duty TestSummary JudgmentWillfulnessLiquidated Damages
References
28
Case No. 19094/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2012

5 Brothers, Inc. v. D.C.M. of New York, LLC

This case involves a dispute between a general contractor, D.C.M. of New York, LLC (DCM), and a subcontractor, Vintage Flooring & Tile Inc. (Vintage), stemming from a construction project for a Best Buy store. The parties had an arbitration agreement, and an arbitrator awarded Vintage $76,539.13. DCM moved to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it was irrational, against public policy, and indefinite, partly due to an alleged willfully exaggerated mechanic's lien by Vintage. Separately, Vintage moved to confirm the award. The court denied DCM's motion to vacate the award, finding that DCM failed to demonstrate the award was irrational or indefinite, and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Vintage. The court also denied DCM's motion for summary judgment on its lien exaggeration claim, stating that the arbitration implicitly rejected the exaggeration claim by finding Vintage's claim meritorious.

Arbitration AwardVacaturConfirmationSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorMechanic's LienLien ExaggerationPublic PolicyIrrational AwardIndefinite Award
References
24
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. No. 29, No. 30
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

The Matter of the Claim of Thomas Johnson v. City of New York , The Matter of the Claim of Joseph D. Liuni v. Gander Mountain

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in these appeals: whether a claimant’s schedule loss of use (SLU) award must always be reduced by a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same body “member” under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15. The Court clarified that separate SLU awards for distinct injuries to the same statutory member are permissible, provided the claimant demonstrates that the second injury resulted in an increased loss of use. For Thomas Johnson, the Court affirmed the prior decision, concluding he failed to present sufficient evidence isolating the impairment caused solely by his knee injury, apart from his prior hip injury award. Conversely, for Joseph D. Liuni, the Court reversed and remitted the case, as Liuni had provided evidence through his expert that his elbow and shoulder injuries were separate pathologies, each contributing distinctly to the loss of use of his arm.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Successive InjuriesBody Member ImpairmentEarning CapacityStatutory InterpretationKnee InjuryHip InjuryElbow InjuryShoulder InjuryMedical Expert Testimony
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iron Workers District Council v. D.C. Scott, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a consortium of Iron Workers funds, union, and a trust, initiated legal action against D.C. Scott, Inc. under ERISA and the Labor-Management Relations Act. The lawsuit aimed to recover delinquent fringe benefit contributions and compel an audit of the defendant's records. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, providing extensive documentation and affidavits to support their claims. Despite being notified of the procedural requirements and consequences for non-compliance, D.C. Scott, Inc., proceeding pro se after its counsel withdrew, failed to submit a sworn response or admissible evidence to counter the motion. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering D.C. Scott, Inc. to pay $235,417.98 in delinquent contributions, interest, fees, and to comply with future audit and reporting obligations.

ERISALabor-Management Relations ActDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantAttorney WithdrawalFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployee BenefitsPension FundsHealth Insurance Fund
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 4,232 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational